Friday, April 19, 2013

I received an email this morning from a West Vancouver resident who complimented me on the look of Hollyburn Mews but assumed all the homes were sold. I told her that although two homes were sold pre-completion, we decided to delay our marketing program until the landscaping was complete, since I wanted potential buyers to see what they would be getting, especially the outdoor patio areas and gardens.

Well, the landscaping is nearing completion and I'm pleased with the way things are turning out. So in the coming weeks, Elaine Biggan, my Sales Associate, will show the remaining five duplexes and two coach houses by appointment.

As Hadani Ditmars noted in her Globe and Mail story, the planning concept which combines duplexes and coach houses on former single family lots in an established single family neighbourhood is innovative, especially for West Vancouver. http://tinyurl.com/cje8zw8

Hollyburn Mews has been designed and constructed for households who are ready to downsize, but not downgrade! It is located in the 2000 Block Esquimalt Avenue, one block north of Marine Drive, close to the shops and services of Ambleside and Dundarave Villages and steps away from the West Van Community Centre complex and West Vancouver United Church. The homes range in size from 1810 square feet to 2490 square feet. Careful consideration has been given to the layouts and details, including features to make the homes both accessible and sustainable.

I've also included details that hark back to a by-gone era, including dutch doors, wainscoting, porches front and back, and the extensive use of carrera marble.

Architects are Formwerks; the landscape architect is Jane Durante; the contractor is Trasolini-Chetner and the interior staging of the model home is by Decora. Engineers include Nemetz Associates-Electrical, Thomas Leung-Structural, Creus-Civil and Level 5-Envelope. Davies Geotechnical is responsible for the significant extra costs I incurred to ensure the buildings will never settle and basements will not leak!

Thursday, April 18, 2013

Where is Big TOO Big?

Vancouver has had periodic debates over heights of new buildings,
first in downtown, then in some neighbourhoods like Mt. Pleasant.
Successive councils have allowed developers to build taller buildings
than zoning would otherwise allow, in trade for developers’ donations of
parks, preservation of historic buildings, day care centres, recreation
facilities and other public amenities.
But where is the tradeoff inappropriate? That’s the discussion around
an interesting proposal on Helmcken St. at Richards St. Brenhill
Developments is proposing to replace a deteriorating city social house,
with a far larger social residence and other amenities, in trade for
constructing a much taller residential tower than zoning now allows.
Public benefits? Too tall? To frame the discussion, we’re very pleased to host Vancouver City Councillor Raymond Louie, former planning director Brent Toderian, and architect/developer Michael Geller. Then it’s your turn. Feel free to bring your lunch.

So what did I have to say? Here are some notes I prepared for the event.

“When you’re sitting in the bathtub with the hot water
running, how do you know when to shout?”

Today’s discussion was prompted in part by Tweets I posted
expressing concern with a proposal for a 17.4 FSR building on Helmcken.For those of you who don’t know what 17.4 FSR
means, it’s about 3 times the permitted FSR for Downtown South or 10 times the density of the high rise district in Kerrisdale.

Now, normally I’m the one advocating for more height or
density;today I’m going to be arguing
that some developments in Vancouver are being approved at heights and densities
that are not justifiable in terms of context, good planning, but rather because
they offer exceptional public amenities or affordable housing or both.

Put crudely, the City and other Metro municipalities occasionally
approve developments at densities higher than might normally be appropriate because of the substantial CAC’s or other public benefits being offered by or extracted from the developers.

I know that Brent and Raymond are going to dismiss my
concerns by assuring me that they would never approve a building that’s too
large just because of the benefits…in other words…they would never allow form to follow finance….they will say
they first determine an acceptable building form…then they negotiate the $$$.

I would argue that form should follow fit, not finance!

I will confess my views on this topic are somewhat
influenced by Ray Spaxman.I recall when
I was a member of the City’s Development Permit Board Advisory Panel and a proposal came forward around 1984 for a large but very plain rental building complex on the north
shore of False Creek. It was argued that it should be approved because it would
provide much needed housing for EXPO 86 and beyond.I recall Jimmy Pattison, then in charge of EXPO, urging us to approve it.

I recall Spaxman questioning why we should approve a rather unattractive building on a prominent site just because it was needed for EXPO 86 and offered
rental housing. However, if I recall
correctly, the Board approved the project, but fortunately it was never built.
Today, the site is occupied by 888 Beach, one of Vancouver’s best waterfront
developments.

In coming here today, I acknowledge that design and planning
are highly subjective.

I also know that often it doesn’t matter whether a building
is 20 storeys or 22 storeys…what matters more is what’s happening at the
ground plane or the size of the floorplate…or the detailed design of the building, the
materials, the balcony details and so on

As others have suggested to me, the FSR calculation is a blunt
instrument.

I agree…but when I see a proposal for a 17.4 FSR building
for a site on Helmcken, I start to worry…It wasn’t that long ago I was advocating for 4 or 5 FSR for the area. Have things really changed that much in two decades.

So what’s the rationale for such a high density on what is a City-owned site?In a somewhat complex transaction, the developer is proposing a lot of social housing units and rental housing and other community benefits.And on its own, it’s not an unattractive
building….it's across from a park, but just happens to be on a small site.

(I would add that it has a 10,300 sq.ft. floorplate and ten levels of underground parking for about 500 cars)

I had similar concerns with the PCI development at Marine
and Cambie.To my mind, it too was too big.
I once expressed my concerns on Frances Bula’s blog and asked, what is the
justification for the size of this complex…did the developer pay too much for
the land?Is the city seeking too many
amenities?Is there too much rental
housing?

Later that day I received a confidential email from a City
planner who said the answer to these questions was yes.She wrote that she and others in planning
were also uncomfortable with the scale and massing of the complex, but had
essentially been instructed to make it work.

Time will tell if our concerns were valid.

Another development that troubled me was the Rize in Mount
Pleasant. Again, time will tell if my concerns are valid, but I contend that
this building form was driven by the CAC package.Now, in 20 years there will be other large
buildings around it so maybe we won’t care. But for a few years to come, I
predict this building will be out of scale and detract somewhat from the neighbourhood.

Two other recent examples are 1401 Comox that was approved
at 5 times the permitted FSR since it was rental (I hesitate to criticize it
since I admire the architects and developer) but if this had been a condo the proposed
density would never have been approved…it was approved because it was rental.

I am also troubled by the new development in the 900 Block East
Hastings.It looks like 12 floors of
stacked containers, so I should like it.But it too is too big for the context.When I asked the developer about this…a very good developer I might add,
he said the city was insisting that he develop and donate, yes donate 70 social
housing units as part of the zoning trade-off.He was also having to build light industrial space.

Well hello….the site was zoned for light
industrial.This project is over 6 FSR
and it may ultimately

be an interesting building to look at…but now others
are now buying sites assuming 6 FSR will be approved for them too. I worry what this area will look like with a parade of 6 FSR developments.

Furthermore, if 6 FSR is considered appropriate along East
Hastings, why isn’t it acceptable everywhere?

Arthur Erickson once said something in a radio interview
that is quite germane to this conversation.He said it was important for any new development to relate to its surroundings.When the interviewer noted the surroundings
will likely change over time, Erickson agreed, but added future buildings will relate to his
building and change will happen incrementally.

I support an incremental approach to increasing heights and density. But that’s
not what’s happening…just look around 70th and Granville or along
Kingsway…these new developments do not relate to their surroundings…but they each
offered a package of community amenities, rental housing, social housing, or
cash that the City found too hard to refuse.

Last year the City received $180 million from developers in
return for site rezonings. Many people will say that’s great, it means taxes
didn’t go up so much…but I still worry that we’re letting housing
affordability, and CAC packages drive building forms that may ultimately detract
from the design quality of our city that we have enjoyed for so many decades.

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

During the 2008 Municipal Election, I remember debating with Geoff Meggs and Ellen Woodsworth whether Vancouver should create a Housing Corporation to oversee development on City owned lands, etc. Having worked with the Vancouver Housing Corp in the 70's (remember Morris Jerroff?) and once being offered a similar position by then Mayor Mike Harcourt (it was never put in writing!) I have often thought about the need/benefits of a Housing Corporation led by a qualified individual.

During the debate, I remember being a bit ambivalent. If the City hired the right person, who could withstand the substantial political pressure to often do things that didn't make economic or social sense, then it might be worthwhile. But if a Housing Corporation was created with the wrong person at the head, then it could be a very expensive and questionable endeavour.

I recently had a call from the headhunter hired by the City to find the right candidate. No, he wasn't calling because he thought I was the guy for the job. He knew much better! But he did ask me for names, and I provided a few. However, in case anyone who reads my blog thinks they're the right candidate, or might know someone, below is the Job Notice. Good luck....for all of us!

Chief Housing Officer

City of Vancouver

The City of Vancouver is the largest city in British Columbia and recognized internationally as one

of the most livable cities in the world. It has an annual operating budget in excess of $1 billion, and a

Why smaller housing is better for some

Municipal
affairs lawyer and former Vancouver social planner and alderman
Jonathan Baker can be a very witty guy. I once sought a legal opinion
from him after then-Vancouver planning director Ray Spaxman suggested
the zoning of a site might not be valid since the zoning line had been
drawn accidentally. Baker responded that zoning is like pregnancy; it's a
blessed event, whether accidental or not.

Baker was an outspoken
alderman back in the late 1980s, when VLC Properties' Jack Poole first
proposed building affordable rental apartments on city-owned land on
Drake Street. When Poole requested that council relax minimum unit
size bylaws to permit apartments less than 320 square feet, Baker
predicted these apartments would be little more than coffins for their
residents. Twenty years after completion of 600 Drake Street, Concert
Properties (formerly VLC Properties) reports that the building - in
which 64 per cent of the suites are less than 320 square feet - has one
of the lowest vacancy rates in its portfolio.

I thought of Baker
at last month's Housing Affordability Symposium organized by the
Canadian Home Builders' Association in collaboration with BC Housing and
the provincial government. A panel was discussing housing for
"millennials," those born after the early 1980s, and developer Charan
Sethi of Tien Sher was at the podium telling the audience about Balance,
his Surrey project that offers new condominiums priced from $109,900.

They
will be Canada's smallest condos, in many instances less than 320
square feet. The pictures he presented illustrated careful attention to
the detailed suite layouts; the kitchen area is small but functional
with an under-counter washer/dryer. There are also plenty of built-in
features and storage areas to maximize flexibility and livability.

Sethi
told the audience that despite support from the City of Surrey, and
evidence of significant demand from potential buyers, it was difficult
to convince CMHC and financial institutions that they should finance the
project. However, he persisted and eventually lenders came forward
after being convinced there are many buyers willing to trade off living
space for affordability and a brand new home. Soon, Balance will get
underway, and I am confident it will sell well.

I realize that
many people will agree with Baker and worry about the long-term health
and social impacts of living in small spaces. This is by no means a new
concern. Back in the 1960s, as a young architectural student in England,
I learned about the Parker Morris housing standards, which established
minimum room and unit sizes for government-funded public housing. When
many British planners moved to Canada, they brought these and other
minimum space standards with them and they have remained to this day for
both social housing and market housing.

While I agree it is
important to provide adequate living spaces to social housing tenants,
especially families with children, I also think governments should allow
smaller ownership units like those being offered in Balance. They can
be particularly attractive to first-time buyers for whom neighbourhood
cafes and restaurants are part of their living space.

However,
in order to facilitate more "micro-suite" projects, I would recommend
that municipalities consider a number of regulatory changes.

In
addition to reconsidering minimum suite size bylaws, municipalities also
need to revise their parking standards. Today, with the availability of
numerous car-sharing programs, along with improved transit and cycling
infrastructure, many people are choosing not to own a car. At Balance
and an increasing number of condominium developments around Metro, it is
not mandatory to buy a parking space with a unit, thus saving buyers
tens of thousands of dollars.

Furthermore, at a time when we are
trying to reduce greenhouse gases and traffic congestion, if anything,
municipalities should be establishing maximum requirements, not minimum
requirements.
The one exception is for visitor parking. Even if
residents do not own cars, their visitors might. To avoid neighbourhood
parking problems, it is important to ensure provision of adequate
visitor parking, at least for the foreseeable future.

Municipalities
also should reconsider how they establish the various permit fees
charged to developers. Today, while some fees are based on building area
or construction cost, most are calculated on a per-unit basis. This
effectively penalizes developers and consumers of smaller suites. By
calculating fees on overall building area, rather than the number of
units, municipal governments can further encourage development of more
affordable units.

The Housing Affordability Symposium featured
both panel presentations and group discussions in a workshop setting.
During these discussions, a number of participants suggested that
another way to create more affordable housing is to reduce consumer
expectations and demand more modest finishes and features in new homes.

For
example, they asked whether new units always had to have granite and
marble countertops and stainless steel appliances. Do two-bedroom
apartments really need two bathrooms?

The reality is that my
generation, and those who preceded me, rarely grew up in homes with
granite and marble countertops. Similarly, many three-bedroom homes were
less than 1,000 square feet with just one bathroom. Therefore, I find
it ironic that at the same time as we decry the high cost of housing, it
is difficult to find new homes with arborite countertops, or new houses
less than 1,000 square feet.

I hope municipal governments will
start to make the necessary changes to facilitate the development of
smaller and more modest homes around Metro. And don't worry, they won't
be like coffins!

Michael Geller is a Vancouver-based architect,
planner, real estate consultant and property developer. He also serves
on the adjunct faculty of SFU's Centre for Sustainable Community
Development. His blog can be found at www.
gellersworldtravel.blogspot.com

Monday, April 8, 2013

Whenever I talk to the media and see the final story or video clip, I invariably regret about half of what I said! Often I wish reporters would write down what I mean, rather than what I say!

That was the case with the following story that appeared in yesterday's North Shore News. For example, while I was the one who raised the topic of Community Amenity Contributions and how they should be calculated, I wish I had made it clearer that I am not necessarily opposed to paying CAC's, or even the amount.

My concern, and that of most people in the development industry, is with the uncertainty that results from trying to calculate CAC's based on the anticipated 'land lift' following rezoning, rather than a pre-determined amount. The problem with this approach is that one doesn't know what the CAC will be until well into the design and rezoning process...and as noted, markets change...but the CAC is fixed prior to rezoning.

Developers are also troubled by the fact that these requirements are deemed voluntary requirements. Why? Because there's some question as to whether they are legal!

There were a few other things that I wish I hadn't said, especially since the reporter Jeremy Shepherd was 100% accurate in quoting me!

Monday, April 1, 2013

It's
April 1st. Over the years I have undertaken a number of pranks, but
my two favourites were tied to the marketing of Elm Park Place, a
condominium project I developed in the 90's at Larch and West 41st in
Kerrisdale.

In 1998, Prince Charles came to Vancouver, so I paid
for an 'advertorial' in the Courier that reported that the Prince was rumoured to
have purchased a Kerrisdale condominium near a park. A number of
excited purchasers contacted me to ask whether he had in fact bought at Elm
Park place. However, my favourite call was from a purchaser who was
furious that I would sell to a member of the royal family without
consulting other purchasers. "How are we going to manage with all
the extra security?" she wanted to know.The
following year I wrote an 'advertorial' that the provincial government
had secretly approved a SkyTrain extension along West 41st with a
station at Larch and West 41st. A surprising number of people were
fooled, including one of my daughter's Crofton House classmates who
brought in a copy of the Courier as her 'show and tell' story.

"There's
going to be a SkyTrain to Crofton House" she exclaimed. My daughter
had to explain that it was just one of her dad's April Fools' Day
jokes. Unfortunately, the girl had never heard of April Fools' Day.While
some people get quite upset about April Fools' Day pranks, I think
they can be wonderful. However, I must confess I was fooled a couple
of years ago by the following story that appeared in the Vancouver Sun on April 1 2010

City considers building a shelter for homeless chickens

Now that some homeowners are allowed to keep the birds, officials expect some to be abandoned when reality sets in

VANCOUVER
- Anticipating a wave of buyers’ remorse, city staff are recommending
the city build a special shelter for hens they expect will be
abandoned by owners having second thoughts.
The 36-page report
to city council details every change the city will have to make before
backyard egg farmers will be allowed to set up shop. In March 2009,
council lifted a 30-year prohibition on keeping urban hens and
directed staff to develop the guidelines.

The report deals with
everything from the decibel levels of crowing roosters, which will
not be allowed, to pest control techniques to ward off marauding rats
hunting for chicken feed.
Apartment dwellers will not be allowed
to keep chickens on their patios, as the guidelines say only single-
and multi-family homes will be allowed to house hens.

The report
recommends the city spend $20,000 of the community services budget to
build a facility at the Vancouver Animal Control shelter to house
seized or abandoned hens.
“Even now we get the odd hen or
rooster in the shelter,” said Tom Hammel, the city’s chief licence
inspector. “So there will be more.”

To keep the numbers down,
as well as reduce the risk of avian flu, the report says residents may
keep no more than four hens, which must be older than four months.
“We don’t want people buying cute fuzzy chicks on impulse and then finding out they don’t want them,” said Hammel.

Jordan
Maynard, manager of Southlands Farm in Vancouver, says some urban
chicken farmers may get fed up with their hens if they buy the wrong
breed.

“If they get birds that are bred for meat they won’t be
suitable for the backyard. Those birds are pathetic. They don’t walk
properly and they grow too fast and they will just lay on their side
and not lay eggs,” he said.

Also, hens usually stop laying eggs
after about six years and residents may not want to kill them, but they
may not want to keep them either, he said. “It depends on whether
people come to think of them as pets.”
People who tire of their
chickens won’t have a problem finding them new homes, Maynard said.
“I’ve heard that someone on Saltspring Island is starting a retirement
home for chickens.”

Hammel said the city does not recommend
people give away their hens to large chicken farms because of the risk
of spreading avian flu to commercial stocks.

The report
includes guidelines to minimize odour, stating that coops must only be
kept in a back or side yard, and that owners must remove the manure
and keep the food and water inside the coop.

Those who want to kill their hens must take them to a veterinarian or farm for slaughter.

The
guidelines will go before the planning and environment committee next
Thursday. Should the committee approve, the report will go to public
hearing May 18.

Health concerns and noise complaints were the
main reasons urban chickens were not allowed in the past. But now the
city says chickens have important environmental benefits.

The
about-face comes as the city strives to be the greenest in the world.
According to the report, by providing eggs for urban residents and
fertilizer for urban gardens, backyard hens contribute to local food
production, which “reduces the city’s carbon footprint.”

Hammel
said there will be an online registry that owners must sign so the city
can locate the chickens in case of an outbreak of disease. There will
be no licence fee to keep the birds.
ticrawford@vancouversun.com

After
reading this story I had to contact Patricia Graham at the Vancouver
Sun to see if it was a delayed prank or a real story. After checking,
she wrote back to say it was for real!

The following wonderful pranks are from a list of the 100 all time best April Fool's Day pranks

3: Instant Color TV

1962:
In 1962 there was only one tv channel in Sweden, and it broadcast in
black and white. The station's technical expert, Kjell Stensson,
appeared on the news to announce that, thanks to a new technology,
viewers could convert their existing sets to display color reception.
All they had to do was pull a nylon stocking over their tv screen.
Stensson proceeded to demonstrate the process. Thousands of people were
taken in. Regular color broadcasts only commenced in Sweden on April
1, 1970.

10: Planetary Alignment Decreases Gravity

1976:
The British astronomer Patrick Moore announced on BBC Radio 2 that at
9:47 AM a once-in-a-lifetime astronomical event was going to occur
that listeners could experience in their very own homes. The planet
Pluto would pass behind Jupiter, temporarily causing a gravitational
alignment that would counteract and lessen the Earth's own gravity.
Moore told his listeners that if they jumped in the air at the exact
moment that this planetary alignment occurred, they would experience a
strange floating sensation. When 9:47 AM arrived, BBC2 began to
receive hundreds of phone calls from listeners claiming to have felt
the sensation. One woman even reported that she and her eleven friends
had risen from their chairs and floated around the room.

20: The 26-Day Marathon

1981: The Daily Mail
ran a story about an unfortunate Japanese long-distance runner, Kimo
Nakajimi, who had entered the London Marathon but, on account of a
translation error, thought that he had to run for 26 days, not 26
miles. Reportedly Nakajimi was now somewhere out on the roads of
England, still running, determined to finish the race. Various people
had spotted him, though they were unable to flag him down. The
translation error was attributed to Timothy Bryant, an import director,
who said, "I translated the rules and sent them off to him. But I
have only been learning Japanese for two years, and I must have made a
mistake. He seems to be taking this marathon to be something like the
very long races they have over there."

#38: Operation Parallax

1979:
London's Capital Radio announced that Operation Parallax would soon
go into effect. This was a government plan to resynchronize the
British calendar with the rest of the world. It was explained that
ever since 1945 Britain had gradually become 48 hours ahead of all
other countries because of the constant switching back and forth from
British Summer Time. To remedy this situation, the British government
had decided to cancel April 5 and 12 that year. Capital Radio received
numerous calls as a result of this announcement. One employer wanted
to know if she had to pay her employees for the missing days. Another
woman was curious about what would happen to her birthday, which fell
on one of the cancelled days.

#43: An Interview with President Carter

2001: Michael Enright, host of the Sunday Edition of the Canadian Broadcasting Corpation's radio program This Morning,
interviewed former President Jimmy Carter on the air. The interview
concerned Canada's heavily subsidized softwood lumber industry, about
which Carter had recently written an editorial piece in The New York Times.
The interview took a turn for the worse when Enright began telling
Carter to speed up his answers. Then Enright asked, "I think the
question on everyone's mind is, how did a washed-up peanut farmer from
Hicksville such as yourself get involved in such a sophisticated
bilateral trade argument?" Carter seemed stunned by the insult. Finally
he replied, "Excuse me? A washed-up peanut farmer? You're one to
talk, sir. Didn't you used to be on the air five times a week?" The
tone of the interview did not improve from there. Carter ended up
calling Enright a "rude person" before he hung up. Enright then
revealed that the interview had been fake. The Toronto comedian Ray
Landry had been impersonating Carter's voice. The interview generated a
number of angry calls from listeners who didn't find the joke funny.
But the next day the controversy reached even larger proportions when
the Globe and Mail reported the interview as fact on their front pages. The editor of the Globe and Mail
later explained that he hadn't realized the interview was a hoax
because it was "a fairly strange issue and a strange person to choose
as a spoof."

#58: Portable Zip Codes

2004: National Public Radio's All Things Considered
announced that the post office had begun a new 'portable zip codes'
program. This program, inspired by an FCC ruling that allowed phone
users to take their phone number with them when they moved, would allow
people to also take their zip code with them when they moved, no
matter where they moved to. It was hoped that with this new program zip
codes would come to symbolize "a citizen's place in the demographic,
rather than geographic, landscape." Assistant Postmaster General
Lester Crandall was quoted as saying, "Every year millions of
Americans are on the go: People who must relocate for work or other
reasons. Those people may have been quite attached to their original
homes or an adopted town or city of residence. For them this innovative
measure will serve as an umbilical cord to the place they love best."

#93: Eiffel Tower Moves

The Parisien
stunned French citizens in 1986 when it reported that an agreement
had been signed to dismantle the Eiffle Tower. The international
symbol of French culture would then be reconstructed in the new Euro
Disney theme park going up east of Paris. In the space where the Tower
used to stand, a 35,000 seat stadium would be built for use during
the 1992 Olympic Games.

#95: Chunnel Blunder

In 1990 the News of the World
reported that the Chunnel project, which was already suffering from
huge cost overruns, would face another big additional expense caused by
a colossal engineering blunder. Apparently the two halves of the
tunnel, being built simultaneously from the coasts of France and
England, would miss each other by 14 feet. The error was attributed to
the fact that French engineers had insisted on using metric
specifications in their blueprints. The mistake would reportedly cost
$14 billion to fix.

100: The British Postal Address Turnabout

In
1977 the BBC gave airtime to Tom Jackson, General Secretary of the
British Union of Post Office Workers. Mr. Jackson was up in arms about a
recent proposal that the British mail adopt the German method of
addressing envelopes in which the house number is written after the
name of the road, not before it (i.e. Downing Street 10, instead of 10
Downing Street). Jackson spoke at great length about the enormous
burden this change would place upon postal employees, insisting that
"Postal workers would be furious because it would turn upside-down the
way we have learned to sort." His comments elicited an immediate
reaction from the audience, many of whom phoned up to voice their
support for Jackson's campaign. What the audience didn't realize was
that there were no plans to change the way the British addressed their
mail. Mr. Jackson's diatribe was an elaborate April Fool's Day joke.